Falsification

One common argument used by Atheists against religious truth-claims is that since they are often not falsifiable they don't deserve serious consideration. To make the claim that "God exists" is to make an unfalsifiable claim.  There is no convincing evidence to support the claim and no evidence can be provided to refute the claim. Therefore, such claims are of little or no use for the purpose of meaningful discussion.

One rebuttal to this argument is to point out that there are often scientific claims that begin as unfalsifiable claims due to the inability to test an hypothesis. This is true and does happen. Researchers might often be inspired to begin down an untestable unfalsifiable path but eventually they must produce some type of testable hypothesis to retain their credibility.

Religious truth-claims often are subjected to the same pruning. As evidence mounts that certain truth-claims are falsifiable and are in fact shown to be false they are often abandoned.  Both scientists and religionists will adopt auxiliary theories in efforts to save a failing hypothesis.

Scientists might hold on to bad or untestable theories for long periods of time trying to prove their ideas to be true. Religionists seem to do the same thing. Unsupported, untested, unfalsifiable claims simply don't deserve the same level of consideration in rational discourse as ideas that are falsifiable, testable, and in fact shown to be true.

If you base your world view on unsupported, untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims then you should not expect anyone else to give your world view credibility.